Decisions...Decisions... - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/04/2005 01:22:21 AM · #1

Hello,
I was wondering if some fellow DPC'ers could offer me advice on my next lens.

My current thinking is I need something with more reach. I have the Canon 17-85mm USM IS. I personally love the lens, but then again its the only lens I have ever used :)

On the positive side, I feel it is a very good walk around lens. It has a pretty good wide angle capability, focuses quickly when I have it on AF, and the ISM is useful in low light.

On the negative side, It cant get as close as I want. Im pretty brave, so I will get close to people or subjects to grab a shot, but sometimes getting closer just isnt possible or doing so and I miss the shot I was after.

Thus, I was thinking about these two lenses.

EF70-200mm f4.0 L USM
or
EF75-300mm f4.0-5.6 USM (58mm) Image Stab.

What I have read so far on these two lenses is the EF70-200mm f4.0 L USM is probably one of the best lenses Canon has ever made, considering the qualist of glass, construction, price etc etc

I have read some negative comments about the build quality and usefullness of the EF75-300mm f4.0-5.6 USM (58mm) Image Stab. but my current 17-85mm USM IS feels rock solid, so I dont know if I should go with another for the extra 100mm of reach

Or many some of you old pros think I should get another type of lens to balance out my kit bag.. Please let me know..

thanks

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/04/2005 01:32:40 AM · #2

Sigma's making a 50-500 that gets VERY good reviews, if youw ant reach...

Robt.

yido

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

07/04/2005 02:17:14 AM · #3

EF 70-200 f4L.
On the EF 75-300IS, the image is very soft after 200 anyway.
If you need more reach on occasions, consider the $70 1.4x TC to the L lens.

BlackDot

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

07/04/2005 02:27:56 AM · #4

I got the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro II on Saturday. Pretty impressive in Macro, and very decent in Telephoto. I'm no expert though, but there are some reviews on the Internet that say the Sigma is better than the Cannon 75-300.
Good Luck.

carlos

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/04/2005 05:07:08 AM · #5

You can only find rave reviews for the canon 70-200 f4 L. I love mine, more and more every time I use it. And just ordered a Tamron 1.4TC from BH ($79.95) in case I feel the need for more reach. See Gordon's post down in this thread, it does it all!

Go for it if money permits, otherwise, the Sigma 70-300 APO sould be a good alternate. Meantime ;-)

Edit: I'm keeping an eye on the 17-85 IS USM... going your same way, just in reversal :D
EditII: Filter size is the same on both lenses, for your advantage

Message edited by author 2005-07-04 05:20:54.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

07/04/2005 05:25:09 AM · #6

Originally posted by yido:

On the EF 75-300IS, the image is very soft after 200 anyway.
If you need more reach on occasions, consider the $70 1.4x TC to the L lens.

The 1.4x TC, *especially* non-Canon, are soft too.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

07/04/2005 05:58:36 AM · #7

I have the 75-300 (non-IS) and have played with the 70-200L. There is no question that the latter is by far the better lens, in terms of speed (focussing and f-stop), looks mighty impressive and feels great.

However - the 75-300 is fine (I am not sure how much difference the IS makes in practice: this lens is best used in good light conditions, as in low light the AF tends to suffer in any case: it may be worth considering the non-IS version and saving some cash). I use it all the time and have some excellent shots with it - the reach does count: it is far better than cropping, even if it is not necessarily the best image that can be obtained had you had a better quality lens. Plus, the 1.6 multiplier on your camera means that the edges of the lens are effectively unused, and the best/central bit of the lens is used.

The better quality comes at a price - if you can afford it, then the 70-200 would be great, and the teleconverter would manage the reach issues (though with the noted degradation of quality). If you were always planning on shooting at 300mm, I am not sure that the teleconverter + 70-200mm is a wise investment, as it brings the performance down to a similar level as the 75-300 (lose an f-stop, general loss of sharpness).

If you are planning on taking 200mm shots, and only occasionally will want 300mm, and the cash is available, the 70-200mm sounds like a good option.

Alternatively, others have noted the many non-Canon options which have a different set of compromises.

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

07/05/2005 02:18:01 PM · #8

I think my next question is how much more reach do I get with 300mm or 200mm.. Still trying to understand that..

yido

Canon EOS-5D

07/05/2005 02:46:24 PM · #9

I can't give you good scientific data, just personal experience.
There seems to be a big difference from 200-300mm for me.
For tight shots of zoo animals, I have to crop when using 200mm, with 300mm I'm okay.
Personally, I notice more difference going from 200-300mm then from 300-500mm.
You'll have to see what kind of photography you do and if you have needs for over 200mm. Perhaps you can borrow a 55-200 or a 70-200 and see if you are always trying get longer focal length than 200mm.

Message edited by author 2005-07-05 14:48:06.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/05/2005 03:00:20 PM · #10

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by yido:
On the EF 75-300IS, the image is very soft after 200 anyway.
If you need more reach on occasions, consider the $70 1.4x TC to the L lens.

The 1.4x TC, *especially* non-Canon, are soft too.

A good 1.4x TC on the 70-200/4 will not be that soft. The 70-200/4 is by nearly all acounts even a bit sharper than the 70-200/2.8, and that is saying something. The 1.4x converter on this lens is a viable combination, and will certainly be superior to the 75-300 @ 280mm. Some of the non-Canon TCs are surprisingly good, though I agree that the 1.4x II is quite superior.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

07/05/2005 03:43:36 PM · #11

Originally posted by jseyerle:

Thus, I was thinking about these two lenses.

EF70-200mm f4.0 L USM
or
EF75-300mm f4.0-5.6 USM (58mm) Image Stab.

While the IS of the 75-300 is certainly useful and, in my opinion, well worth the price premium over the non-IS, the focussing speed is extremely slow and I found it to be soft at the long end wide open, where I seem to use my lenses most. These two factors led me to sell the 75-300 in favour of the 70-200. The 70 - 200L focusses rapidly and seems to be sharp enough for anyone throughout its range. I used mine with a Kenko Pro 300 1.4TC and couldn't discern a quality difference (and the TC was white to match the lens). I then started to miss the IS of the 75-300, but that's another story.

In short, I heartily recommend the 70-200 f4L

Message edited by author 2005-07-07 04:57:07.

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

07/05/2005 04:39:17 PM · #12

I faced that exact same decision back in February, between those same two lenses, and my budget afforded me the choice of either. I wound up choosing the 75-300 IS USM over the 70-200 because I wanted the extra reach and I have not been disappointed at all. I don't think I am quite worthy of "L" glass anyway, and besides, I think there is entirely too much hype and lens snobbery on this site (and many others) anyway. I don't do this for a living, and don't print much of anything over an 8x10, so the 75-300 has been perfect for me. I don't have issues with it being unsharp at 200 or 300, and have had many, many compliments on shots taken with the lens at the far end. I even won a ribbon with it. ;) So if "L" is important to you, by all means, go for it, but if not, and you want a decent, reliable, longer-reaching zoom lens, save a little $ and get the 75-300. I doubt you would regret it. :o)

07/06/2005 03:06:00 PM · #13

Thanks All for the tips..
In the end after drinking some beer I went with the 70-300mm USM IS.
I almost went with the 70-200mm L USM but I decided as well I am not worthy of L glass just yet. I made a promise to myself.

The day I get a blue ribbon, I'm buying some L glass ;)

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/06/2005 03:21:20 PM · #14

Originally posted by carlos:

You can only find rave reviews for the canon 70-200 f4 L

I e-bayed mine (got almost all my money back, too). It was a little slow, and a little short for what I wanted it to do. I used it at 200 almost all the time. Mostly, my only complaint was the focus - I had to get it serviced for front focusing - when canon returned it, it worked, but sometimes bounced around a bit looking to lock on (even at mid day on a contrasty subject). I know my experience was rare, but I figured I'd share.

The 200mm 2.8L is sharper and works better with extenders (from what i've read). Unless I hit the jackpot sometime soon, this will be the lens I buy (almost bought it recently, but got the 28-135mm IS instead for those snapshot times).